Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Alexander (lawyer)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alexander (lawyer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement, plain and simple. Contains exactly what lawyers normally put into their advertisement: a list of big cases won-- a list of prominent clients, and a list of all the associations they are members of. Nothing else. Not to my surprise, an apparent autobiography. Not really to my surprise, here for over 5 years. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does seem to be promotional and not very biographical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a run of the mill lawyer. He seems to have done a great job as a zealous advocate for his clients, and was part of a team that won millions of dollars in settlements for his clients. Good for him -- even better for his clients. However, he was just doing his job; anything less would be legal malpractice. Absolutely nothing he's done professionally is especially unique or notable. Some examples: while he's been on his state bar board, he never achieved the presidency; there's no evidence of notable honors such as law review or Inns of Court; no notable cases; no service in statewide commissions. The articles he's allegedly written are a legal blog - not peer reviewed. The whole tone is that of a LinkedIn profile. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no indication of notability; just another lawyer. TJRC (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll leave aside the acerbic remarks... --Randykitty (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly promotional, and the many low-quality sources are insufficient to pass WP:GNG (what we need is a smaller number of much higher quality ones). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and autobiographical. There is a very little notability here but he is not notable enough in his own right. Would anybody else think to write about him if he didn't do it himself? I suspect not. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.